for gosh sakes, and he cannot seem to bring himself to answer a straightforward question directly. Glenn's questions were well thought out, and left lots of very clear areas to launch direct answers. And Dodd of course knew that Glenn was going to publish the interview, so what would it have hurt to slow down and give simple and direct answers? What's the matter with him? The transcript sounds like Dodd was practicing for Hardball with a few too many cups of coffee under his belt.

I was surprised at the claim of using only 4300 kWh/year at the Clinton's Chappaqua residence. Even the 14000 number that she implies was the starting number before modifications is pretty modest. It was a pity the interviewer didn't scratch this point further - was the low number due to not actually living at the residence a large part of the year? Should perhaps the Senator's DC address be included in the energy survey? Is she including only electrical energy (probably yes), and if so, how is the wintertime heating supplied, and at what energy use?

I don't want to necessarily find gratuitous fault with the Senator's responses. If she's hedging by reporting on just electricity use in a home that's vacant a lot, that's OK. But I often wish reporters that can gain access to senior politicians had a bit more technical savvy. To me those numbers just sounded crazy low, and if it's reasonable to count the hours Guiliani spent at Yankees games versus Ground Zero in fall 2001, then it's reasonable to ask Clinton the obvious follow-up questions.

What makes a nation esteemed is the power of ideas, which can be an inexhaustible resource. Some examples: the rule of law, democracy, checks and balances on the accumulation of power, respect and tolerance of diversity, advocacy for human rights, freedom from fear and want, kindness and humility, curiosity and open-mindedness, respect for the environment and for all commonly shared aspects of nature.

In the past, the United States has approached most of these to varying extents, and indeed has backed off significantly in the past six years. But that doesn't mean that it cannot reclaim its virtue. The Bush administration is not necessarily the start of a trend, and indeed I think it will be recorded by history as the most un-American in spirit.

In contrast, the author points to what? China, a ruthless dictatorship and despoiler of the environment; Russia, under strongman rule and with huge societal problems; and Iran and Venezuela - oh, please! And the common thread of these nations' supposed ascendancy? Hydrocarbons, a.k.a. crack cocaine for despotic rule, or in the case of China, cheap labor and sheer numbers. Hydrocarbon pushers may well get rich, but they never inspire.

In fact, it is exactly this competition for the moral leadership of humanity that I believe will compel the United States to substantially change for the better in decades to come. We've been through it before - slavery, the Gilded Age, depression and war - and the better angels of our nature stepped up and did battle, and that can happen again. Our biggest threats today are within ourselves: fear and prejudice, the same old fetters we've had for centuries, and it's high time we took these challenges on.

For the Democrats (borrowed from FDR's Four Freedoms: A Future Free From Fear!

For the Republicans: Security and No Surrender!

Somewhere between 60 to 65% of independent voters pulled the Democratic lever in the 2006 elections. The war, the social conflicts, and the economic insecurities present then are still around, if anything significantly amplified. Combine that with the historical reticence of American voters to continue a party's presidential franchise more than two consecutive terms, and you have to ask yourself "What's the point of Obama's potential Republican votes?"

Additionally, many Republicans (and Democrats) are not as politically maniacal as are, say, blog comment posters (ahem). My wife, a registered Republican, last voted for a Republican for President when his name was Reagan (and she has since had some regrets about even that). My subjective perception is that an awful lot of voters decide when the two candidates are up there on the debate stage a few weeks before the general election. And then it comes down to Personality A versus Personality B.

The flip side of my argument (demonstrating that liberals can hold both sides of an argument simultaneously) is that I suppose it's possible that a carefully nonpolarizing candidate could begin a process of political realignment (along the lines of Karl Rove's pipe dreams, and ironically achieved through tactics exactly opposite those of the Blossom). Sigh. That would be a truly awesome feat, in the language of Obamaese.

...are better suited for general election ads. While it is obviously true that Republicans and Independents will see these ads, what matters most at this stage is that the candidates appeal to Democratic voters. And not just any Democratic voters, but those Democratic voters who actually vote in primaries, or even more extreme, go out on a cold Monday night in January in Dubuque or Des Moines to stand up for three hours at a caucus.

I thought Barack Obama's ad showing testimonials from Republicans was particularly inappropriate. Republicans have demonized us liberals (again, that part of the Democratic coalition that show up for primaries) and called us traitors. We have no use for their approval, none. (By the way, I'm sure that the Republicans featured on that ad are probably decent and moderate and have no use for Ann Coulter, but who the hell cares? I see (R) and I see red!) Break out that ad in October 2008, Senator Obama, if you get that far.

Maybe a few snippets from Republicans' ads, when juxtaposed with these ads, might be illustrative. I would guess that a lot more "red meat" gets tossed out over their side. Are they worried about seeming too extreme at 15 months before the general election? I don't think so.